Posted by
Lisa on Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:10:15 PM
Let me preface this by saying that there are many areas where
conservatives believe that President Bush has disappointed them. The
debate over McCain-Kennedy comprehensive "immigration reform" is the
most recent example of this perceived apostasy, and it's a great
example of how tone-deaf the administration has become lately. We are
also annoyed with the massive increases in federal spending that the
President allowed to pass his desk. To some conservatives, there is a
long list of Dubya's sins, real and imagined, and they are ready to
move on from this President. Our reasons are different than those of
the Democrats. While acknowledging that he should be given all of the
credit for his SCOTUS picks and some of the credit for our strong
economy, we still find him lacking in other areas. Some of the
criticism is unfair in this way: He never ran as a fiscal conservative.
He was always supportive of making it easier for illegal immigrants to
come here. We voted for the President, not because of these things, but
because of Iraq and because we wanted conservative judges on the
Supreme Court.
Bill Kristol believes that President Bush will be judged as a successful president.
His argument almost convinces me, but even though I know that there
have been some successes with the surge strategy, I'm just not buying
his optimism on Iraq. He says that in order for a war president to be
judged a success, the war has to be won. Many of us are discouraged
with Iraq. Maybe we are buying in too deeply to what the MSM is
selling. Maybe we are just being realistic about the obstacles the
administration is facing in continuing the surge and trying to improve
the conditions on the ground in Iraq. In either case, it's an uphill
battle to keep the Republicans from defecting to the Democratic side on
the war, and it's a continuing struggle to keep the impatience of the
American people with the progress of this war from forcing those
defections from those standing for re-election next time. I'm not
rooting against the President. I want him to succeed, not because it
validates me, or neocons, or because he would have a better legacy. I
want Iraq to succeed because that would mean the terrorists and
insurgents have failed there.
Maybe we are asking for too much in our presidents and in our
presidential candidates. After all, none of the Republican presidential
candidates currently in the field are as committed to reducing the size
of the federal government as the average conservative is. They don't
have any new ideas on Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, and they would not
implement anything different from what Bush has done so far. On the
other hand, Romney, Giuliani, and Fred are all better communicators
than President Bush. Romney is probably the weakest of the three
because of his tendency to sound wonkish when discussing anything. All
I'm saying is that if conservatives intend to vote for a Republican for
President in '08 (rather than sitting the election out and giving the
election to Hillary by default), that means that we will have to settle
for someone who doesn't fit everything we want. And that includes FRED.